This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Great Michael Moore advice to Obama

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

Not much. I doubt I would even notice the increaseor the decrease. I didn't notice the Bush tax cuts. I spent no more and no less than I would have otherwise.

And people do study the spending habits of all groups of people, and studies that have been psoted on these htreads here show that the wealthy simply don't spend the money they get from tax cuts. So, what supports the notion that they do?

As for giving it to the feds, there is that deficit thingie to worry about. If the government is going to spend, they should have the revenue to pay for it. So, while I also think we should cut spending, it is just as important to increase revenue, increase taxes.

I just gave you Reagan's tax cuts as an example. JFK's tax cuts were another success. Ultimately, there is no way to effectively gauge how, when, or where people will spend their money if a tax cut is actually put in place. But it is in best interest of the PEOPLE to spend their money how they see fit, not how you think they should spend it.

People say that capital gains tax are for the rich, but I've never been hired by a poor man.

If all we needed to do to stimulate the economy would be to tax the rich, then we could effectively take 80% of their income and voilą! All our economic problems are solved. How much is enough?

Re: Great Michael Moore advice to Obama

Originally Posted by ElijahGalt

I just gave you Reagan's tax cuts as an example. JFK's tax cuts were another success. Ultimately, there is no way to effectively gauge how, when, or where people will spend their money if a tax cut is actually put in place. But it is in best interest of the PEOPLE to spend their money how they see fit, not how you think they should spend it.

People say that capital gains tax are for the rich, but I've never been hired by a poor man.

If all we needed to do to stimulate the economy would be to tax the rich, then we could effectively take 80% of their income and voilą! All our economic problems are solved. How much is enough?

To which I asked, can you prove the tax cuts were the only factor? or even the single biggest factor? And if they were, hy did we have grotwth with higher tax rates? How did we have growth slow with tax cuts in place?

Like I said, yes, we've seen growth with a low tax rate, but we've also seen it with a high tax rate.

I'll continue tomorrow as I've been called away.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: Great Michael Moore advice to Obama

Boo Radley;1059116558]

You'll notice those two were declared wars, and not just presidental choice, meaning congress had to stand accountable. They are much more likley to have a very good reason when they have to declare war than when they just pass the buck to the president. I think this is whyn our founding fathers put that power in congress.

Perhaps it is because you think we were representing the Vietnamese people. One of the reasons they were able to fight us so well was because we did not have the support of the vietnamese people. So, you would have to kill large numbers of the people in order to win. We were never goign to do that, nor should we.

Do you seriously believe the people wanted Communism? And killing large numbers of people in order to win is not uncommon in a war.. But it is not "genocide" as you earlier claimed.

No, I'm saying we didn't. They falling wasn't and isn't a threat to us. Never was.

I've never heard of anyone claiming that North Vietnam was a threat to the American mainland. I don't quite see your point here.

No one I know of, but if someone that close to us wasn't a threat, how can you argue a communist VN was?

But I'm not making that argument. I have no idea where you're going with this.

Think missle crisis.

The "show of strength" was with the USSR, not Cuba.

No, I don't think they did. We ahd the fever, and some capitalised on that fever, and congress, seeing the writing on the wall when those who objected lost their seats, simply passed the buck to the president. But many in doing so argued that Saddam was not at that level.

There was Maxine Waters and perhaps one or two others. Otherwise the vast majority in the House and Senate approved, and their votes show it.

And no, you should support your government only when they earn it, I believe someone once said. Blind obediance is something more asked for in a communist country than in a free country.

Whatever someone said at one time, no one is asking for "blind obedience". This is hyperbole. The United States is involved in a war, to which elected politicians agreed, and with a very dangerous enemy. There are many Americans who support terrorist propaganda and Michael Moore is one many. That's just a fact.

Re: Great Michael Moore advice to Obama

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

To which I asked, can you prove the tax cuts were the only factor? or even the single biggest factor? And if they were, hy did we have grotwth with higher tax rates? How did we have growth slow with tax cuts in place?

Like I said, yes, we've seen growth with a low tax rate, but we've also seen it with a high tax rate.

I'll continue tomorrow as I've been called away.

I can't prove that tax cuts were the only factor, but I only use the example to prove that higher taxes does not automatically mean higher revenue.

As for the growth when high taxes are in place, you can call a 1% growth in GDP growth, but it's certainly a very small growth. Show me historical examples of relatively HIGH tax rates coupled with a relatively high growth in GDP. If you think that 1% growth in GDP is high, then never mind. If that's the case, we have very different views of economic growth.

And also, please be more specific (especially in regards to slow growth with tax cuts in place).

Re: Great Michael Moore advice to Obama

Originally Posted by ElijahGalt

I can't prove that tax cuts were the only factor, but I only use the example to prove that higher taxes does not automatically mean higher revenue.

As for the growth when high taxes are in place, you can call a 1% growth in GDP growth, but it's certainly a very small growth. Show me historical examples of relatively HIGH tax rates coupled with a relatively high growth in GDP. If you think that 1% growth in GDP is high, then never mind. If that's the case, we have very different views of economic growth.

And also, please be more specific (especially in regards to slow growth with tax cuts in place).

I would agree neither is automatic, but if taxes don't control the economy, and I don't believe they do, then it would be better revenue than there would be otherwise.

And I'm not talking 1% versus 50% or any such unbalanced fraction. I say the ecoonomy has done well with both a high tax rate and with a low tax rate, that the tax rate seems to have no efect on the economy at all.

Throughout 1980s, President Reagan took the top marginal tax rate down from 70% to 28%. The average growth rate between 1979 and 1989 was a sturdy 3.05 percent. In the early 1990s, Presidents Bush and Clinton raised the top marginal rate from 28% to nearly 40%. The average growth rate between 1989 and 1999: a slightly higher 3.23 percent.

Going back three decades, the five years of greatest GDP growth -- 1983-1984, and 1997-1999 -- occurred in years where the top marginal rate was 50% and 39.6%, respectively. Today it is 35%.

Overall, the graph suggests that yes, Virginia, cutting taxes reduces revenue. But it also tells us that stuff happens: the stock bubble inflated revenues in the late 90s, the collapse of that bubble hit revenues thereafter, then the housing bubble did its thing, and so on.

There's plenty more. But the point is people tend to look at history selective and often make a causal relationship error in their thinking. As state above, stuff happens, and this stuff, not taxes, has more to do with the economy than taxes do. Taxes seem to have little to no effect at all.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: Great Michael Moore advice to Obama

You';re misinformed. That was not a declaration of war. it was a passing of the buck. It said, let Bush decide, and allowed congress to not be held accountable.

Do you seriously believe the people wanted Communism? And killing large numbers of people in order to win is not uncommon in a war.. But it is not "genocide" as you earlier claimed.

I seriously believe people prefer to chart their own course and didn't want us doing it for them. Yes, that is what I believe.

I've never heard of anyone claiming that North Vietnam was a threat to the American mainland. I don't quite see your point here.

Perhaps you should read up on the history of the war. Look up domino theory and how we saw that as a threat to the US (which would be the homeland).

But I'm not making that argument. I have no idea where you're going with this.

You can't be fighting for our freedom if that freedom isn't threatened. You can't call VN a threat if they don't threaten us. Without those things, we had no business being there.

The "show of strength" was with the USSR, not Cuba.

In Cuba.

There was Maxine Waters and perhaps one or two others. Otherwise the vast majority in the House and Senate approved, and their votes show it.

No, passing the Buck and saying let Bush decide is not a declaration of war. Read Kerry's speech for example, where he clearly states Saddam did not reach the level of htreat that required invasion outside of the UN. The bill was not a declaration of war.

Whatever someone said at one time, no one is asking for "blind obedience". This is hyperbole. The United States is involved in a war, to which elected politicians agreed, and with a very dangerous enemy. There are many Americans who support terrorist propaganda and Michael Moore is one many. That's just a fact.

And politiicans are not God, or royality. They do not have support just for being. They act reckless and wrong, and free people can and rightly should speak out against them. And the mere fact that you see dissent as terrorist propaganda says more about how much you lean towards a communist train of thought than any war protester. And that is a real fact.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: Great Michael Moore advice to Obama

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

You';re misinformed. That was not a declaration of war. it was a passing of the buck. It said, let Bush decide, and allowed congress to not be held accountable.

It doesn't matter. They still gave their approval! How can they possibly approve what they did and complain later? George Bush was their President and their nation's leader and they allowed him to lead. They can't whine and renege later, That's just bad for the country.

I seriously believe people prefer to chart their own course and didn't want us doing it for them. Yes, that is what I believe.

Sometimes people aren't given that option. They certainly weren't given such options under Communism.

Perhaps you should read up on the history of the war. Look up domino theory and how we saw that as a threat to the US (which would be the homeland).

I know about the domino theory and it wasn't in reference to the American homeland.

You can't be fighting for our freedom if that freedom isn't threatened. You can't call VN a threat if they don't threaten us. Without those things, we had no business being there.

The world isn't all that big and when an irrational political begins, leaving thousands in its wake, it must be stopped. It's useless to wait until they show up at your door, as well as immoral. And keep in mind that VN was a battle against Communism, and that was an international threat.

In Cuba.

You talked of the "show of strength", not the location. This show was with the USSR, not Cuba.

No, passing the Buck and saying let Bush decide is not a declaration of war. Read Kerry's speech for example, where he clearly states Saddam did not reach the level of htreat that required invasion outside of the UN. The bill was not a declaration of war.

Was that before or after he gave his approval?

And politiicans are not God, or royality. They do not have support just for being. They act reckless and wrong, and free people can and rightly should speak out against them. And the mere fact that you see dissent as terrorist propaganda says more about how much you lean towards a communist train of thought than any war protester. And that is a real fact.

I don't mind dissent. Not at all. In fact I'm dissenting right now. But it depends a lot on what form this dissent takes. A lot of it is lies, and they are poison to any democracy..

Re: Great Michael Moore advice to Obama

Originally Posted by Grant

It doesn't matter. They still gave their approval! How can they possibly approve what they did and complain later? George Bush was their President and their nation's leader and they allowed him to lead. They can't whine and renege later, That's just bad for the country.

It does matter. Had they declared war, they would be responsible, and would have had to reach a proper standard. Instead, they took a cowardly route, and left it to the president, allowing him to take the heat. if you support Bush, this should not sit well with you.

Sometimes people aren't given that option. They certainly weren't given such options under Communism.

And sometimes they openly choose something you wouldn't expect.

I know about the domino theory and it wasn't in reference to the American homeland.

If it did not effect us, the homeland, there would be no reason to worry about it.

The world isn't all that big and when an irrational political begins, leaving thousands in its wake, it must be stopped. It's useless to wait until they show up at your door, as well as immoral. And keep in mind that VN was a battle against Communism, and that was an international threat.

But we've never stopped any such thing. That wasn't going on in VN. In fact, the communist there had fought with us in WWII, and sought or aid to remove french rule.

And we certainly didn't stop Saddam while he was killing folks. Instead, we waited until it was over, after years of sanctions, and when the country was not facing such deaths to inflict war. As I often say, this was adding injury to injury.

You talked of the "show of strength", not the location. This show was with the USSR, not Cuba.

You miss the point. The missles would have been in Cuba and not the US.

Was that before or after he gave his approval?

He was explaining his vote right after he made the vote. He clearly stated that if Bush went outside the UN he would oppose him as Saddam did not present that type of threat.

I don't mind dissent. Not at all. In fact I'm dissenting right now. But it depends a lot on what form this dissent takes. A lot of it is lies, and they are poison to any democracy..

While I do believe the lies of Bush, Beck, Limbaugh, Oberman, and Cheney are poisonous, I more concerned with teh lies some seem willing to swallow. Just because Bush says Iraq is a threat that requires war doesn't mean it is so. Nor does it mean anyone has to support his lie.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.